tv Inside Washington PBS November 25, 2012 6:00pm-6:30pm PST
>> president obama asked me to come to israel with a very clear message, america's commitment to israel's security is rock solid and unwavering. >> this week on "inside washington" hillary clinton is on the case. >> i want to welcome secretary clinton once again to jerusalem. >> back home, racing toward the fiscal cliff. >> to show our seriousness, which would revenue on the table. >> presidential politics. >> forget about it. >> he is smart and the kind of leader we need for future of our country. >> it really is the nation's laws, losing david patraeus. >> personally, this is a heartbreak.
>> full disclosure, we are putting this program together the day before thanksgiving and we come to you with the fervent hope that events will not overcome us. on this day, or families come first, like yours. let's start with the bloody conflict between israel and hamas in the middle east. israel's critics say they're doing more than defending themselves. there was a meeting to come up with a diplomatic solution. >> the goal must be a durable outcome that advances the security and legitimate aspirations of the israelis and palestinians alike. >> if there is a possibility of achieving a long-term solution of this problem through diplomatic means, we prefer that. if not, then i'm sure you understand israel will have to take whatever action is
necessary to defend its people. >> i will borrow the opening question from the "washington post" columnist david ignatius. the question is, is there any escape from this palestinian version of heil? >> there is not. it goes back to what was said in the beginning, that critics have said that israel has turned got into a prison. we seem to not remember that seven years ago when israel left gaza. in front of the cameras of the world, at every soldier, every settlement, every jew left gaza, nothing left behind. israel declared gaza and an international frontier, meaning it was recognized as an independent entity and the first palestinian state. israel wanted nothing but trade and open relations and normalization. what did it get?
it got continuous war. that is the cause of this round and the reason there is no hope for the future is that hamas is committed to and less war and destruction of israel. that is why this will only be a respite. there'll be a truce and then it will start again prepared -- start again. >> i see this as a strategic problem, going beyond what happened seven years ago. >> the roles have changed tremendously. egypt is run by the muslim brotherhood. although the prime minister stepped in, he stepped in calling israel the aggressor. turkey has turned in another direction against israel. >> it called israel terrorist state.
>> there are new challenges and i do not know which way this is going to go. >> if you look at this over the long span of the last 20 to 25 years, everything that charles says in some respects has merit. but you can onto this one step at a time -- cannot do this one step at a time. at first, israel did not want to negotiate with the plo and viewed them as the worst of the worst. now they are the better part of the equation. now they will not negotiate with hamas. hamas is being pressured from more radical elements. each time you refuse to make a deal with people you detest, there is somebody worse. the arab community is a different community, and the pressure is coming much more ardently in that direction. >> the relationship between the u.s. and israel will not change.
what has changed is what colby address, and that is, the reality of the arab world. we no longer have mubarak in power in egypt, and that guaranteed to played a key role in dealing with israel. nina is absolutely right, the islamic jihad backed by iran is putting pressure in gaza, and on hamas itself. this has to stop. 1500 rocket attacks on an area slightly twice as large as washington d.c. on wednesday. and attacks within the suburbs of tel aviv and jerusalem are absolutely unacceptable. but i think the hope is this compound -- is this, barack
obama has a political advantage because benjamin netanyahu is up for reelection and favored to win. but he was so obvious and so transparent in his support of mitt romney, all but endorsing him this year, i think there is a chance for a resolution. >> that is absurd. what resolution? hamas's charter declares that not only is israel illegitimate and has to be eradicated, but in the carter -- in the charter, jews are the cause of wars starting back to the french revolution. we're stock -- we are talking about ideology so radical that they have never considered any kinds of concessions. the reason israel is not negotiating with hamas is that hamas has a single objective, the liberation of palestine. it speaks of tel aviv as occupied palestine.
what do you negotiate with someone whose only objective, declare openly and unashamedly, is your destruction? if you make a concession to someone you access your existence to want a bit of extra land, find. you can have an accommodation between you and your adversary. if you have an enemy that once your destruction, like iran, and of whom hamas is a client, there are no negotiations. you are dreaming if you say this has to stop and there has to be a resolution. yes, there has to be, but there is none. >> onto foreign policy, let me ask you about this. 97 house republicans have signed a letter this week warning president obama not to make susan rice the next secretary of state, calling -- saying that she either willfully or incompetently misled the american public in the handling of the van ghazi matter.
>> i would say that their understanding of the constitution and their role in conformations is illustrative of their overall general knowledge. i think this is a very difficult one for the president. he stood up for her in a press conference and said, might you have a problem is with me. he all but seemed to suggest that he would name her secretary of state. even if she is the best candidate, and there are many people would think she is not a, to take on that confirmation fight over the at the same time that you have all of these other things, from the fiscal clift to the middle east crisis, to take that on now is not the most responsible thing to do. >> is susan rice being
scapegoats it? >> i did not take from the president's comments that he was necessarily going to nominate her. i did think he was saying to senator mccain and senator gramm, kemosabi and tonto, look, pick on someone your own size. there was an element of bullying going on here. is there more to it than that? susan rice's reputation precedes her. she is known as a very difficult, tough person, smart. she had trouble when she first went into the administration and was in competition with hillary
clinton. i'm not so sure that the president will nominate her. >> if he does, will he succeed? >> the way he defended her was very odd. number one, why are you picking the woman, essentially. he was playing lancelot. >> not to me. >> there were women who wrote about this who said they were offended by that town. -- by his tone. it was a very misleading statements. that is undeniable. she talked about a demonstration, a riot out of control. there was no demonstration. and the fbi knew that two days earlier because it spoke with the people within the embassy and evacuate -- that it had evacuated and saved who said there was no demonstration and no right at. that is number one. but then he said, why are you picking on her?
she does not having to do with an ghazi. -- if benghazi. she knows nothing about this. >> she volunteered. >> yes, but she knows nothing. and why is she talking about it? >> she was talking about it because somebody from the administration was going to speak and they put her out in what is known in the trade as a full of whiskey. she did every single shell. she was not privy to it, but she did have the administration's distilled intelligence on it. that is what she was representing. to the best of my knowledge, she did not say anything that the administration did not want her to say. but i think that the impression left by the president in the press conference is that this is my manhood involved. she is my nominee and then she
pulls herself. >> still ahead, the fiscal cliff. come along for the ride. >> we had a very constructive meeting with the president to talk about america's fiscal problems. i outlined a framework that deals with reforming our tax code and reforming our spending. i believe the framework that i have outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness, we have put revenue on the table house speaker boehner -- on the table. >> house speaker pinera today after a meeting -- house speaker john boehner after a meeting at which the white house. does that mean that republicans are considering raising taxes on wealthy americans? >> yes, but there's a divorce between raising revenues and raising rates. and i'm afraid that half of
washington, the liberal half, has an inability to understand. you can keep rates the same, or even lower them, as was recommended by the president's own debt commission, which he rejected, if you broaden the base by eliminating deductions and credits and all kinds of exemptions. that is how they did it in 1986. in the reagan-o'neill agreement. they lower the rates and raise revenue by broadening the base. every quarter century we have to clean out the tax code, all the articles that are added by lobbyists, and get them out of there. >> there was a story in the "new york times" this week that there might actually be a millionaire surtax. is that what democrats are looking at? >> -- a millionaire's tax. is that what democrats are looking at? >> there are fantasies in both camps.
on the one side, it is raising their rates on everybody who makes $250,000 will solve the problem. and the other side is the program that charles outlined. and then there is a third fantasy that the lobbying class in washington, which is much stronger than ever before, will simply be dead and not do anything to try to keep the loopholes they now have, or the preferences day out. >> will the democrats agree to a higher -- above $250,000? >> i do want to make a note aboutcharles's statement one half of washington being liberal. i thought that was a concession. >> if i were to think about the groupies, it would be three- quarters. >> we will talk about the groupies in the military later. i do want to say that nina is
absolutely right. the reality is that you cannot do this painlessly. at the same time, all of the tribute that charles paid, and so deservedly so, to the reagan- o'neill plan had an element to that was truly an acceptable to every conservative i know, and that is, it taxed income that was earned by one's brow and brains and hard work exactly the same way you did for claudeen coupons for the boys at the yacht club who never worked a minute in their life. they just clipped coupons and they paid the same rate. i would love to see that today. it would be reasonable. a dollar is a dollar is a dollar and it should be taxed that way. >> do we have a happy ending? >> i think so.
there is no fantasy going on. everybody knows what this is about. easter bit down and obama wants to raise the rates. he knows the difference between revenues and rates. and republicans know the difference as well. they're going to have to compromise. eventually, the $250,000 will go up. and it will not be $1 million, but maybe $500,000. >> let's talk about the future of the republican party. >> anytime anyone take a trip to iowa, people start speculating about the future. i am not now, nor will i ever be a candidate for offensive coordinator of iowa. >> welcome to the 2016 presidential sweepstakes. mariko rubio in iowa officially as part of the governor's
birthday fund raiser. but this gives iowa a chance to look at rubio. who is the favorite of this stage of the game? >> there is no favorite. the most terrifying and development is that terry branstad, a longtime governor of iowa, wants to abolish the iowa straw poll, which is held at the august before the caucus. and for those of us who need that fakes the august before the caucus, it is a terrible idea. >> republicans in 2016 in full swing, a board of 15 prominent republicans privately contemplating -- up to 15 prominent republicans privately contemplating. >> they have had a rough couple of weeks. but they have a deep bench of people who can run. you know, young, vibrant, potentially very interesting
candidates, from chris christie who need the hub right now, to -- need a hug right now, to rubio. >> bobbi jindal? paul ryan? >> but this is a beauty contest phase. it tells you nothing because the real decision will come when they decide on politics questions. you have already seen some push back against traditional republicans. they said, look, the problem was that we went with a moderate and did not get one of our own. that argument will come up over and over again. it will come up over immigration. there are some very strong people who are also going to fight. they have battles ahead of them. >> you have to be miss oklahoma before you can be miss america, charles. >> that is a very deep thought. >> i am loaded with them. >> i had not really contemplated it. you mean, christy who gave --
>> and don't go there. >> and chris christie is actually right now in quarantine. in about six months he will be ready to rejoin the race. one interesting about these candidates is there is not a stark ideological development -- division between them. there is not a single issue over which you go left or right. i think there is a consensus, what you start with ryan, rubio, jeb bush, jindal, but -- mitch daniels. these are people who are serious. and they have lived the conservative ideology, and the language, and in the debate. and they know it in a way that romney did not. i think inina is right, -- that nina is right, it is a very
strong bench. i think they were all too young, but it will be in their pride in 2016. >> the long time congressman from louisiana said of bobby jindal, in louisiana, we have tried smart and we have tried honest, but never together. and in bobby jindal, i think they have both. >> a rhodes scholar. >> i think he is an intriguing and interesting figure. >the most fascinating figure in republican politics has to be jeb bush. he has predicted that texas will be a blue states by 2020 if republicans fail to address the immigration problem. >> i think all he needs is a name change. >> i have a suggestion, jeb of
tracinda -- jeb ochocinco. that way he covers all of the pertinent of voters of the same time. >> he gave a very competitive speech. mr. chris christie, the last person to tell him he should join a gyn, but watching him get out of a limousine is like watching the russians get out of afghanistan. >> more ahead. >> and joe kelly was the best kind of a friend, a friend that would keep a secret from my friend that you could trust. >> feddis don phillips talking to abc news about his friend. the what ms. kelly decided not to keep secret is that mr. patraeus's mistress was sending her threatening e-mails. she called a friend of the ca, who tipped off a couple of
congressmen, including minority leader eric cantor. david petraeus lost his job as the head of the cia. analysts it was all caught up in what has been labeled the military adulteress complex. does that about summed it up? >> yes, it does. it is really unfortunate. it is not the people have never had affairs in high positions in government. cia directors have even had affairs in the past. and we did not fire them over it. but these are different times. my view is that it should have been investigated, because there was a to -- a potential compromise of national security. if they found nothing, and so far they have found nothing, then patraeus should have been read the riot act by the president and should have stayed
and none of us would have known. but i have to say that everyone i know in high office in the military establishment tells me i'm wrong. they say you cannot have that kind of person in that high of a position at demonstrating that kind of judgment been compromised that way. >> i agree entirely with nina, and i don't think i've ever said that on the show in 21 years. unless there is a breach of national security or unless there is criminal activity, none of our business. i believe that in all kinds of the scandals. people love this stuff. the irony is that the then ghazi issue, what was known about the embassy or covered up or whatever, people were not interested in till there was a sex scandal attached. -- until there was a sex scandal attached. i think this is private unless it impinges on the nation's security. since the conclusion was that there was no wind pentagon
security and no criminality, -- there was no impingement upon security and no criminality, why were these decisions made? >> i think it was just such an egregious series of bad judgment -- a series of decisions of bad judgment i'm not questioning the man's intellect, his service, his commitment to the country, his patriotism. but first, you are carrying on an affair in an exposed e-mail situation. i do not know how you carry on an affair with or without e- mail, but i can tell you this, that is about the dumbest thing you can do. plus, he is with this woman, who to call her less than stable is a complement on the highest order pipa -- order. there were warning bells set off by him. he writes a letter endorsing her
as a mother to a judge who basically says, you are absolutely wrong. and let it be noted -- and it was duly noted by the marine general george allen. it makes you wonder what is going on with these folks. >> it raises the question of whether classified material was compromised in any way. the other thing is that patraeus resign and he gave a reason, because of his own judgment. it was his judgment, not a president. >> that of the last word. thank you. see you next week. >> for transcripts of this broadcast, go to insidewashington.tv. >> "inside washington" is